EQB Rulemaking on Silica Sand Mining
July 21st, 2013
Minnesota state agencies are hosting two meetings on August 2, one in Red Wing and another in Winona, to discuss the legislative mandates of this last session, including Standards and Criteria under Minn. Stat. 116C.99:
Red Wing: 9:00 a.m. at the St. James Hotel
Winona: 1:30 p.m. at Winona State University, Tau Center Rotunda, 511 Hilbert St
OK, now add to that…
The EQB just sent out notice on what they’re calling a “Silica Sand Rulemaking” under which the EQB shall :
The EQB shall consider whether the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 116C.991, should remain part of the environmental review requirements for silica sand and whether the requirements should be different for different geographic areas of the state.
See also (came in same envelope) the “Mandatory Categories Rulemaking” starting up:
OK, so what does that phrase quoted above from the Silica Sand Mining Rulemaking Request for Comments mean? Let’s look at the statute, the legislative site says, “Statute section 116C.991 does not exist.” OK, so now let’s now look at the Session Laws, here’s what it says in mandating the PCA, DNR and EQB rulemaking and DoH “value” (whatever the hell that is):
Sec. 105. RULES; SILICA SAND.
(a) The commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency shall adopt rules pertaining
to the control of particulate emissions from silica sand projects. The rulemaking is exempt
from Minnesota Statutes, section 14.125.
(b) The commissioner of natural resources shall adopt rules pertaining to the
reclamation of silica sand mines. The rulemaking is exempt from Minnesota Statutes,
section 14.125.
(c) By January 1, 2014, the Department of Health shall adopt an air quality
health-based value for silica sand.
(d) The Environmental Quality Board shall amend its rules for environmental
review, adopted under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116D, for silica sand mining and
processing to take into account the increased activity in the state and concerns over the
size of specific operations. The Environmental Quality Board shall consider whether
the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 116C.991, should remain part of the
environmental review requirements for silica sand and whether the requirements should
be different for different geographic areas of the state. The rulemaking is exempt from
Minnesota Statutes, section 14.125.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
OK, so next, exempt from Minn. Stat. 14.125, what’s that? It’s a time limit, so this says they’re not bound by the time limit in Minn. Stat. 14.125.
They’re looking for Comments, at the same time, on what should be included or not included in Mandatory EAW and EIS categories (silica sand, anyone?), and wanting to know whether 1) “the requirements of Minn. Stat. 116C.991 should remain part of the environmental review requirements for silica sand” and 2) “whether the requirements should be different for different geographic areas of the state.”
I think we’d better ask Sen. Matt Schmit to explain it. I have! sen.matt.schmit@senate.mn.
But FYI, it looks to me like the statute calls into question whether the rules mandated by (a), (b), and (c) should remain part of environmental review requirements for silica sand. EH? SAY WHAT? I DON”T THINK SO! Please explain how I’m wrong about that… please…
(a) The commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency shall adopt rules pertaining
to the control of particulate emissions from silica sand projects. The rulemaking is exempt
from Minnesota Statutes, section 14.125.
(b) The commissioner of natural resources shall adopt rules pertaining to the
reclamation of silica sand mines. The rulemaking is exempt from Minnesota Statutes,
section 14.125.
(c) By January 1, 2014, the Department of Health shall adopt an air quality
health-based value for silica sand.
Comments on “Silica Sand Rulemaking” are due 4:30 p.m. August 23, 2013:
Jeff Smyser, EQB Jeff.Smyser@state.mn.us 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155
Comments on “Mandatory Categories Rulemaking” are due 4:30 p.m. August 23, 2013:
Kate Frantz, EQB kate.frantz@state.mn.us 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155
Stay tuned for more information.
Save the Bluffs files Application for Zoning Ordinance Change
July 15th, 2013
Hot off the press — or printer — Save the Bluffs has just filed an Application for Zoning Ordinance Amendment.
It’s pretty simple — Save the Bluffs is asking for a Silica Sand and Natural Resource Overlay District. It’s pretty simple to do, too, just take the maps of silica sand information and natural information and put it all together. DOH! What’s not to like?
Tonight is the Goodhue County Planning Advisory Committee where they’re discussing whether or not to extend the Moratorium, that is, after the Mining Subcommittee said NOT to extend it. EH?
It’s third, last, on the agenda:
Be there or be square!
Post meeting update: The PAC voted to recommend the Mining Study Committee continue work on the two identified items, meeting scheduled for September, and voted to recommend the County end the Interim Ordinance/Moratorium.
Bernie Overby and Dan Rechtzigel were downright rude, bullying a speaker, and there’s no excuse for that — the chair needs to be the chair and stop that behavior. Overby seemed to think he could pooh-pooh our filing yesterday, maybe do an end run around it, but it didn’t work. He also was arguing against an overlay, noting that the Pepin County ordinance and limitation on truck traffic wouldn’t work as it’s a different situation here with all our industry (?) (Not one of them referred to the Le Sueur Mining Overlay District, and it’s not been included as an example in packets with examples!) Hey, Bernie, Pepin County’s isn’t an overlay similar to what we’ve requested, it’s not about trucks — an overlay addresses many things, and in this case, we’re asking it jointly address available sand resources and natural resources that need protection.
Point of interest, some, if not all, of the PAC were not notified of the Save the Bluffs Application, and when Lisa Hanni announced it, some seemed surprised.
7849 Rulemaking — deja vu all over again
July 12th, 2013
This post is dedicated to Kristen Eide-Tollefson, a fierce advocate for public participation who likely strikes terror into the heart of every bureaucrat trying to keep the public out.
To have come full circle again, AGAIN, with the same old arguments from utilities and agencies charged with protecting the ratepayers, public interest, and environment, it’s getting old… as I am… and tired of spending so much time countering utility self-interest and agency pandering trying to preserve a modicum of equity in review of their proposals.
Photo from Daily Planet: Save Dinkytown effort escalates in Minneapolis as Book House and the Podium get ready to say goodbye
Having been through Minnesota’s statutory changes to the Power Plant Siting Act, and the subsequent rulemaking, remember, this was after NSP’s legislatively mandated attempt to site nuclear waste in Florence Township and post Arrowhead-Weston and Chisago Transmission Project in an effort to keep that sort of mess from happening again, I’m more than a little skeptical of the agency (arm of the executive, don’t forget) and utility agendas. Add to it the inexplicable draft proposals from Office of Administrative Hearings on the 1400-1405 rules used in utility and other contested case proceedings (oh, and I guess I’d better check to see what they did to rulemaking!?!), it’s a big job to think up the dreadful scenarios that could result from their proposals and try to prevent it.
So there I am, cleaning out the office in one house, trying to separate the wheat from the diamonds, and I found this gem:
This was an email sent March 16, 2001, over 12 years ago…
Experience shows that when timelines or processes are foreshortened, or need review &/or siting processes are circumvented, the public grows reactive. Persistent attempts to evade full review by state and public bodies create increased, and increasingly organized resistance, to utility strategies. To attempt to “streamline” or proceed with projects without due public process invites only grassroots revolt & lawsuits. Such “streamlining” may give one side or another momentary advantage (maybe just enough to get those bulk power transmission projects into place), but it will not bring the two “sides” into better working relationship.
The public rarely goes into a siting or routing situation distrusting the utility. Controversy is created time and time again by the utility itself in”
1) the disregard applications show for the qualities and values of the communities; and
2) inadequate information given to the public; and
3) lack of candor/disclosure of the real purposes or goals of a project.
Deja vu all over again… The public has spoken, over and over and over and over and over and over, in the individual project dockets and for close to two decades at the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing. Back to Kristen’s missive:
Among other things, the public advised:
1) more careful screening of applications up front.
2) reviving the ongoing public advisory task force; and
3) reactivating the “planning” component with public participation in standards and criteria development (Minn. Stat. 116C.55, since deleted). To be involved with planning features up front could alleviate tensions and create more mutual accountability among all parties; and
4) greater consideration of resource discrepancies between proposers and affected public/communities.
As proof of the continuity of public response, we found in reviewing the record of the power plant siting advisory committees from the early 80s that our advisories, almost 20 years later, differed very little from theirs.
Let’s make it 30 years now… Yet what we’ve seen since these words were written in 2001 is something else entirely, for example, the removal of planning from the state, to MAPP in St. Paul, to MISO in Indiana, further away from the project area, and further away from the people, geographically and in our ability to participate. Planning has become more and more remote. Citizens complaining are told to participate at MISO — right, yeah sure, as if any participation there has any impact:
Back to Kristen’s missive:
From a public perspective, these two values are primary. Private utility investments, fair profits and returns are part of the equation. But infrastructure development for distant industrial markets for competitive advantage of private corporate interests is another matter. The development of this competitive infrastructure depends above all else, according to the January issue of Electricity Journal, upon transmission. This is the line that the public has drawn.
We do not want our lands, air and waters to become a generating and transmission ‘factory’ for industrial centers. We do not want our affordable energy to be traded, sold or transferred to other states, and to be blamed for ‘reliability’ problems when it is.
To fail to provide due process for the analysis of the implications and impacts of such proposals is to fail the public purpose of law and policy. Please consider these implications in all of your deliberations.
Hear that, Public Utilities Commission?
Changes!
July 10th, 2013
Above, from the property tax information — the back yard as it was before we bought it… and now:
Frac sand mining – last night in Rushford
July 10th, 2013
Let’s hear it for LAND STEWARDSHIP PROJECT! Last night they held a meeting in Rushford, packed, almost ran out of chairs, good to see so many who want to take action against the frac sand mining push to sell our part of the world to oil and gas companies. People get that the biggest issue here is corporate control and greed.
This meeting was lead by LSP’s Johanna Rupprecht, Megan Buckingham, and Doug Nopar, with LSP member activists Vince Ready, Barb Nelson, and Marilyn Frauenkron Bayer, and overall, it was well worth the drive. It’s that same warm fuzzy feeling as filling a Taconite, MN gym on a -20 degree day, only warmer!
There are at least 11 mines proposed by Minnesota Sands that are subject to an Environmental Impact Statement, 615.31 acres, phased and connected actions under the Minnesota Rules and subject to a Mandatory Environmental Impact Statement because it’s over the 160 acre threshold. Minn. R. 4410.4400, Subp. 9(B).
The EQB determined that these mines would indeed require an EIS (the mining companies try to say it’s “voluntary,” how good of them, but it’s not voluntary, it’s MANDATORY) in March.
There are a few things that I think need to be done, information that needed in the public domain:
- File a Data Practices Act Request with the EQB and do a quick file review to find out what’s been going on with these projects thus far. The public is left out of the “pre-application” discussions.
- Make sure the EIS scope is broad, and that the EQB doesn’t release a one-sided scope proposal that would take an act of Congress to alter… or a lawsuit!
- Details of ownership, who owns these projects, who is behind these projects, and how do these projects own!!! Who in the community and which of “the deciders” are being paid by the mining companies. Remember Dennis Egan, former Mayor of Red Wing? Who else is in their employ, direct or indirect? We need to know about these connections and obligations:
April Fool on April Fools Day!
Rochester Chamber: Egan, Broberg & others on frac sand
Where’s the Mayor’s resignation letter?
7p TONIGHT – Red Wing City Council Meeting
Mayor Egan to resign? Sand mining bill introduced!
Last Mayor Egan post before Council meeting
KARE 11 turns up the heat on RW Mayor Egan
Mayor Egan – the voice of frac sand mining!